The decade-long dispute commenced over a "Cow (figure)" trademark certified on the products of clothing between JECO PTE Co., Ltd based in Singapore and WISE LUCK International Co., Ltd in Hong Kong. Recently, Beijing High People's Court made a final judgment, rejecting the appeal from JECO and sustaining the ruling made by Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) in denying registration of No.3410340 "Cow (figure)"trademark (opposed trademark).

WISE LUCK filed the registration application of the opposed trademark on December 19, 2002, and was approved to use on Class 25 products including garments. In May, 2008, JECO lodged an opposition application against the opposed trademark, claiming that the opposed trademark and its previously-approved No.1265873 "BRAUNBUFFEL and Cow (figure)"(cited trademark) trademark had constituted similarity used on the same or similar kind of products, and the opposed trademark was obtained by squatting with ill will, infringing prior copyright of JECO. Meanwhile, JECO thought WISE LUCK as always holding ill will, damaging public interest. Besides, JECO said its company and relevant company shared high popularity, and WISE LUCK got the trademark improperly by breaching the principle of good faith.

In June, 2012, Trademark Office (TMO) made a decision to refuse the registration of the opposed trademark. The disgruntled WISE LUCK pleaded to TRAB for a review in July. In April, 2014, TRAB decided that the opposed trademark and cited trademark were figures and words combinations, and the figures part were similar in design technique and overall vision, constituting similarity used on the same or similar kind of products. Meanwhile, in view of application date of the cited trademark was earlier than trademarks involved in other lawsuits, and the trademarks involved in other lawsuits were slightly different from the opposed trademark in integral construction, therefore, WISE LUCK's claim that the opposed trademark was created by itself and did not constitute the imitation of the cited trademark. However, TRAB held that the evidence provided by JECO could only prove the ownership of "Cow (figure)" trademark and its prior use of JECO as a trademark, failing to prove that the registration of the opposed trademark had damaged the prior copyright of JECO.

Therefore, TRAB made a ruling to refuse the registration of the opposed trademark. Then JECO brought the case to Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court for judicial support, but failed. JECO appealed to Beijing High People's Court.

After hearing, Beijing High held that, the evidence provided by JECO failed to prove the ownership and transfer of "Cow (figure)" copyright. Besides, there were distinct difference between the opposed trademark and JECO's citation one in overall inclination angle, arc of color blocks and horn and tail lines angle of the Cow figures, and it did not constitute substantial similarity. Therefore, Beijing High held that the registration of the opposed trademark did not damage the prior copyright of JECO, and reject the appeal of JECO, upholding the judgment of the first stance. (by Shu Tianchu)

（Editor Gao Sihan）

（All contents of this newspaper may not be reproduced or used without express permission）